Source: petrieflom.law.harvard.edu 10/24/25
In July, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” (the Order) to address homelessness — or what his administration called “endemic vagrancy,” disorderly behavior, and violent attacks. By encouraging states to expand civil commitment programs while dismantling initiatives such as “housing first” that provide more holistic support, the Order calls for a blunt solution to the incredibly complex issue of homelessness.
Perhaps equally concerning and less publicly discussed is the Order’s quiet reference to the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) federal program. Established in 2006 under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and upheld as constitutional in 2010 by the Supreme Court, this program gives the federal government the authority to civilly commit individuals who are deemed sexually dangerous and likely to reoffend as a result of a mental abnormality. The Order calls for homeless individuals to be screened for admission into the SVP program. This post aims to start a conversation about the level of discretion granted to federal authorities, particularly with regard to individuals without previous history of or conviction for sexual offenses, and how that power might be abused.
A Primer on SVP Programs
Traditionally, inpatient civil commitment has been limited to individuals with severe, diagnosed mental illness, such as major depression or schizophrenia, who pose an imminent danger to themselves or others. These illnesses are considered medically treatable, and commitment is intended to stabilize individuals on a short-term basis. The SVP program, however, is a separate form of civil commitment that is indefinite in length and may follow the completion of an individual’s criminal sentence for a sexually violent offense. These laws require only a finding of “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” to label an individual as an SVP who is likely to reoffend unless confined long-term in a secure facility.
Public outrage surrounding a high-profile sexual assault spurred a host of SVP legislation by 20 states and the District of Columbia in the 1990s, and the constitutionality of this legislation was first assessed by the Supreme Court in 1997. At the heart of Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), was a state statute that included a definition of “mental abnormality” with an inherent future dangerousness component. Prior traditional civil commitment cases had demanded …
I haven’t seen any civil commitment of anyone homeless.
Just because he says it doesn’t mean it will happen and I doubt it will.
He wants to criminalize homelessness but doesn’t want to get to the root of why homelessness even exists and the proper ways to deal with it.
Being a homeless PFR in Chicago is already criminalized. First, CPD causes the PFR to be homeless by ousting them from their home due to residency restrictions, then arrests them on violations when they report weekly to fill out paperwork listing where they slept the past seven nights. Yes, you heard me, weekly registration for homeless PFRs. They show up to be compliant and in the slammer they go. Quite the system.